Value of a garrison unit

[Carassius]

I am still quite new to Civ V -- and still trying to understand all the differences -- many of which are a bit subtle.

Question 1: Is there any defensive reason to keep a military unit garrisoned inside a city? (Disregard happiness from social policies.) Is that unit better protected inside the city? Can it defend the city better from there? Is the city better protected?

Question 2: How is miltary strength calculated? It used to be a certain number of points for each unit of a particular type, plus some points for technological advancements. My military strength doesn't seem to increase when I upgrade units, or when I learn militaristic technologies. How does the AI measure my strength? Are Infantry no more intimidating than Spearman?

 

[Heerlo]

Putting a military unit in a city increases the cities combat strength, thus(I guess)making it harder to capture.

I don't really know too much about your second question, though.Sorry

 

[FeiLing]

Military strength feels like it's all about the number of units.
AI has 300 warriors. You got 10 stealth bombers. He thinks he's 30 times stronger than you and therefore asks you to surrender every two turns. Just awful.

A garrisoned unit slightly improves the city strength but that's about it. And it can not be attacked (exceptions I think are naval units when attacked by aircraft and aircraft on interception mode and nukes of curse). However the unit (or all units in case you got 20 or so air units in a city) will be destroyed when the city is captured... so move it out soon enough. If it's a ranged unit you can/should make the city shoot first, then the unit as when the unit attacks it will no longer be garrisoned for that turn.

 

[NotSure]

1) I don't think there is much of a reason to leave units in cities outside of the happiness and culture you can get with the Honor policy. Sometimes I leave a few ranged and mobile garrisons in frontier cities to respond to the inevitable AI back-stab, but it's probably a waste to garrison units in cities that are deep inside your empire.

2) Military units have a military might (MM) score.
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ5/units
This is a great chart because it shows the MM of every unit. If you build the right units you can keep a high enough score to dissuade war declarations.

 

[headcase]

1) The unit enhances the city's defense, so it can withstand more attacks than without a unit. Also, the unit inside can't be harmed at all (except for nuclear attacks), and gains 3HP per idle turn (it's 2HP outside of a city in friendly territory, 1HP outside of friendly territory)

2) all units have 10HP, but more might means it will lose less HP and take more HP (on average) in conflicts with other military units. Melee units will always lose at least 1HP in any fight or ranged attack against them though. So if an Infantry unit attacked a Spearman, I would guess the infantry would lose 1 or 2 HP, where the Spearman would lose probably at least 8HP and likely be outright defeated.

 

[CYZ]

Not to mention a unit inside a city will not take damage, this is really the main benefit for the unit. You can put a siege unit there and even when surrounded by melee units it can not be touched.

Also, you can put a melee unit in a city. It may attack any adjacent enemy, and as long as that enemy is not destroyed it will stay in the city. It will ofcourse take damage from attacking, but inside a city a unit heals 3 hp per turn so it works well.

That's really my two main tactics for garrisons. Either a siege unit that can fire at will without risk or a melee unit that can take out large chunks of health points and then heal up quickly (they will also increase city strength the most).

 

[Carassius]

I love this forum -- such a great source of information! Thank you for the help!!

The battle mechanics have changed from Civ 4. Keeping a ranged unit inside a city, that may be attacked, is a great idea. Of course, there are time when that unit could be put to better use outside the city.

The chart with MM (military might) was exactly what I was looking for. I try to keep that score high enough (number 1) so that Monty and Alex and George don't get any ideas. There were a few surprises in there (e.g. warrior is higher value than archer) for me. It would be useful reading for anyone who has not yet seen it.

 

[Nevyn]

Carassius: Why I was so bad at CiV at first was because I was playing it like it was CIV with hex tiles and better graphics. Boy was I mistaken. So my advice to you is to let go of everything you knew from CIV and treat CiV as a completely new game. Anything you knew from the older games will just hinder you.